Question about Metagaming

[Talakeal]

Getting to tell your character's story and make meaningful choices within the game are contingent on not being regularly overshadowed, and on not bleeding out during your first combat. Both are closely tied to game balance. It's possible for a group to make a functioning dynamic while the system gets in the way, but that doesn't mean that extra strain on the system is a desirable thing.

I have a very similar criticism about the argument that the solution to fixing martial caster disparity is to restrict martials to low level play; its hard to play Conan or Aragorn or King Arthur when you are just a big fish in a small pond and can only change the world or accomplish great deeds because the actual cool people in the setting can't be bothered to get involved.

[kyoryu]

I have a very similar criticism about people the argument that the solution to fixing martial caster disparity is to restrict martials to low level play; its hard to play Conan or Aragorn or King Arthur when you are just a big fish in a small pond and can only change the world or accomplish great deeds because the actual cool people in the setting can't be bothered to get involved.

Any dismissal of a criticism of "well, that's not a problem for me" leaves me really cool. Like, okay, that's not a thing you care about, but that doesn't mean that people that do care about it are wrong, and we can still accurately say "yes, that system/idea doesn't work very well if you care about <x>".

I mean, really, that's the key of game selection, and really game design, ain't it? Figuring out which things you do care about, and then finding/making a system that supports those things well.

[Quertus]

But you should also acknowledge that most people want their character to feel expert relative to even the other PCs, in their areas of expertise.

Once again, Player skills. In this case, of choosing an RPG with niche protection. Or one without bounded accuracy. Or the social skills to put such in the social contact, and work through methods of testing and enforcement / error correction.

Getting to tell your character's story and make meaningful choices within the game are contingent on not being regularly overshadowed, and on not bleeding out during your first combat.

I’ll (mostly) grant the second, but Robin’s story has being overshadowed by Batman as a central theme. As do many “rivalry” stories. Or Mulan. Or, while slightly different, most stories with a training montage have “being overshadowed” as the impetus. To give just a few examples.

Your entire point is strawmen, ad hominems, and a shocking lack of respect for the agency and boundaries of others.

I think the usefulness of this conversation is other.

… what?

Now, I’m perfectly capable of being wrong, so maybe I’m wrong, but in my words,

* a strawman is a position no one holds, attacked in lieu of attacking the actual position, for the purpose of proving the speaker’s position “right” by comparison. For something to be a strawman, it requires it be an unheld position, for the difference to be intentional, and for the argument to fail against the actual position.

* an ad hominem attack is an attack on the character of an individual presenting an argument in lieu of an attack on the argument itself. Saruman’s response to claims by Radagast, of “Do not speak to me of Radagast the Brown. He is a foolish fellow.”, and going on to complain about his yellow teeth is a classic ad hominem, IMO. To be an ad hominem, it would need to be an attack on a person, completely irrelevant to the points they were making, for the purpose of dismissing their points.

* “lack of respect for the agency and boundaries of others” is a lot broader, and a bit more difficult to summarize. And I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m bored already.

So, let’s step through my previous post.

I opened by responding to concerns about the relevance of my comments and blatant accusations of strawmanning with demonstrations of quotes of how people has brought up balance, to the tune of caring about “the smallest of changes”, and even requesting two Rogues with identical skills be used as the example.

Is that
A) a strawman
B) an ad hominem
C) lack of respect for the agency and boundaries of others
D) none of the above?

Next, I touch on how chasing such balance is penny wise and pound foolish, given all the other factors that affect effectiveness, that affect balance in play (part of the point I’m making).

Is that
A) a strawman
B) an ad hominem
C) lack of respect for the agency and boundaries of others
D) none of the above?

Finally, I ramble a bit, trying to both explain and demonstrate the complex concept that the point of view / mindset with which one approaches a problem can impact how big the problem seems, and how easy it is to solve.

Is that
A) a strawman
B) an ad hominem
C) lack of respect for the agency and boundaries of others
D) none of the above?

And, as my player dumped Charisma, I don’t recognize a fundamental difference between that post, and my position. Certainly, so long as it is part of my position, any one of those three parts not being what you claim constitutes falsehood of the statement the my entire point is such.

So I expect you to explain yourself, or to retract your libelous statements. Personally, as I prioritize my learning and growth, I’m hoping you will teach me a thing or two.

You wanna say I’m a ****? Yeah, I’m a ****. I’ll freely admit it. In fact, I did (or intended to - I don’t think it actually came across right) earlier, in response to an admonition by @JNAProductions, that I should “Have some empathy for others”, where I explained how their proposed actions would not have produced the necessary logic to prove the point I was making.

However, if you try to use me being a **** to ignore my point? That’s pretty much the definition of an ad hominem. To do so as part of an accusation of making an ad hominem is… there’s a word for that. Be careful you don’t go there, eh?

[JNAProductions]

Superman rolls 1d4-2 for most skills, exploding dice.
Batman rolls 1d12 for most skills, exploding dice.

They DO have niche protection-but cheating removes that, in one direction.

It really seems like you’re saying “I don’t care about cheating, so no one should.”
Again-have empathy.

[Quertus]

Superman rolls 1d4-2 for most skills, exploding dice.
Batman rolls 1d12 for most skills, exploding dice.

They DO have niche protection-but cheating removes that, in one direction.

It really seems like you’re saying “I don’t care about cheating, so no one should.”
Again-have empathy.

It has soft niche protection - enough for some purposes, not enough for others. I’m encouraging people to develop the skills to do this analysis and problem solving for themselves.

And, to explicitly state it this time, I live more at the “being a ****” end of the “having empathy” / “being a ****” spectrum. I’m more “tough love” than “coddling”.

Others are welcome to give a more sensitive wording of my position if they want. But, like Bakugo from My Hero Academia, I have no skill at such things.

And I’d like to think that, if one reads carefully, that what I’m saying sounds less like, “I don’t care about cheating, so no one should.”, and more like…

I do care about cheating; probably more than most. But I’ve come to see that cheating at elf games doesn’t really matter wrt playing a functional game the way I thought it did, that like caring about mechanical “balance”, it represents having a suboptimal focus. There’s more important things to care about, from “enjoyment” and “mental health”, to “participation”, “having a story”, and “agency”. That being stuck caring about small picture fiddly details like that is an individual choice, and if that’s what’s holding someone back from having fun, or from having a good game, that they can and perhaps they should choose differently. I’m trying to show people a small fraction of the diverse toolkit available to them, should they choose to embark upon a path of making problems go away. I’ll happily prove people wrong about why one must cheat in particular circumstances, or any other such similar misconceptions they have, to tear down their illusions in the hopes of shocking them into seeing the truth. But I’m not about to hold their hands - they need to (wo)man up and get good if they want to walk this path.

Or something.

[Reversefigure4]

It has soft niche protection - enough for some purposes, not enough for others. I’m encouraging people to develop the skills to do this analysis and problem solving for themselves.

Isn't the easiest method of problem solving here "Don't play with cheaters", rather than "get good at coping with the fact that one guy cheats continually and learn to develop other methods of trying to establish your character in spite of them"?

"Cheating is bad, but not the only method of unbalancing or ruining a game" doesn't change the conclusion that cheating is bad.

[Quertus]

Isn't the easiest method of problem solving here "Don't play with cheaters", rather than "get good at coping with the fact that one guy cheats continually and learn to develop other methods of trying to establish your character in spite of them"?

"Cheating is bad, but not the only method of unbalancing or ruining a game" doesn't change the conclusion that cheating is bad.

With this one toolkit, you not only get cheating covered, you also get the ability to resolve balance issues, the ability to make groups with divergent skill work, perfect balance in 3e (and most every other system), and so much more! It slices! It dices!

Sigh.

“Cheating is bad” is not the same as “cheating is bad for the game”. I’m exclusively evaluating its effect on the game, and pointing out how it’s no different than numerous other things people have problems with, and it’d be really handy for them if there was a way to solve.

Wouldn’t you know it, my “gaming religion” solves All of these problems. (I’m too senile to remember if this is actually what I’ve dubbed my “gaming religion”. Sigh.)

And “easiest”? I’ve never claimed that Changing your world view, or developing skill and getting good, was easy. Or I sure hope I haven’t. Best? Most fun? Optimal? Maybe the only way that actually works? I might have implied such. But until I can mathematically prove that no other method or combination of methods could match my toolkit, I wouldn’t actually claim such. That would be false advertising.

Instead, I just make true claims, like how cheating at dice rolls isn’t as impactful as most believe, and can generally be given the “so what?” treatment, once you have the skill and mindset to do so.

[False God]

Instead, I just make true claims, like how cheating at dice rolls isn’t as impactful as most believe, and can generally be given the “so what?” treatment, once you have the skill and mindset to do so.

So can anything, given the proper mindset.

That doesn't mean it's good to do so or have such a mindset.

Which is still the portion you've failed to demonstrate.

[Quertus]

So can anything, given the proper mindset.

That doesn't mean it's good to do so or have such a mindset.

Which is still the portion you've failed to demonstrate.

That's fair. If you view "having problems" as good, that's your call.

And I don't mean that sarcastically - "If murder doesn't solve your problems, you're not using enough of it". It's fine if you choose "having problems" over "(enough) murder". I'm not judging either way. You do you. I'm just trying to give enough information that the reader can choose for themselves what they consider "good".

Unless by "good" you don't mean "good and evil", but you mean "good" as in "a fun and functional game". If that's the case, then remember the big long example that no one seems to want to discuss? That's the bit that most addressed that concern. So if your concern is about that meaning of "good" not having been proven? Then that's on you. I've done my part, ball's in your court to continue that conversation.

[False God]

That's fair. If you view "having problems" as good, that's your call.

It is good. It's difficult to write about why without delving too far into IRL issues, but the long and short of it is that some things aren't acceptable. This can range from the obviously unacceptable like murder to the questionably acceptable like the outfit someone chooses to wear outside. But as a society, and the Table/Group being something of a mini-society, it is good to object to some things.

It is good to set boundaries, to know what you like, dislike, and are willing to put up with, or not. It is good to "have problems" with people whose actions breach those boundaries and know what you're willing to do, or not do, to deal with that.

[kyoryu]

It is good. It's difficult to write about why without delving too far into IRL issues, but the long and short of it is that some things aren't acceptable. This can range from the obviously unacceptable like murder to the questionably acceptable like the outfit someone chooses to wear outside. But as a society, and the Table/Group being something of a mini-society, it is good to object to some things.

It is good to set boundaries, to know what you like, dislike, and are willing to put up with, or not. It is good to "have problems" with people whose actions breach those boundaries and know what you're willing to do, or not do, to deal with that.

As I've said in this thread, could I develop ways of dealing with someone that rages and yells every time they don't get their way?

Probably.

But I don't want to. And I don't need to.

Does that mean there are some players/tables that I won't be able to play with? Sure. And if I were willing to tolerate that I could play with them. But you know what, they could play with me if they learned to control their anger issues, as well.

We're allowed to have boundaries. Nobody has an obligation to play with anybody else. End of story.

[False God]

As I've said in this thread, could I develop ways of dealing with someone that rages and yells every time they don't get their way?

Probably.

But I don't want to. And I don't need to.

Does that mean there are some players/tables that I won't be able to play with? Sure. And if I were willing to tolerate that I could play with them. But you know what, they could play with me if they learned to control their anger issues, as well.

We're allowed to have boundaries. Nobody has an obligation to play with anybody else. End of story.

Exactly, and IME, having boundaries tends to work out for the best. Especially because it teaches the person who has them what they really want and what they don't. It's all fine and dandy to take a blasé attitude towards anything you normally wouldn't put up with, but if you'd really rather not be around that at all, being around and "learning to stop worrying and love the bomb" so to speak isn't going to get you what you really want. Worse because you probably will have some fun, it can lead you to getting even further away from what you actually want to be doing until you inevitably reach a point of "What the heck am I even doing here, I don't like anyone I'm playing with or anything we're playing!"

Leading you right back to where you should have been: setting boundaries between what you want to do, what you're willing to do, and what you don't want to do.

And honestly, I've seen a lot of folks go through this. It's exceedingly common in employment.

Plus, social pressure to conform, again IME, tends to bring people who operate outside the rules and even those who operate in the extremes, more into line with what the group generally enjoys, or at least can force them to create their own space where their own deviation from the rules or special style of unusual gaming can happen with other like-minded individuals. And not simply folks willing to tolerate it, but folks who actively want and enjoy that special sort of niche variant gaming.

Which is great IMO. People should be able to find whole tables that share what they enjoy. Cheating, min/maxing, fetishes, giant robots, steampunk, meat grinders, whatever. But we shouldn't be pushed into tolerating things we don't enjoy simply because it may produce some completely subjective to every experience level of fun.

[gbaji]

I just have two points to make on this:

1. The whole "two identical rogues" example was just that: An example intended to highlight a hypothetical case, so we could examine likely player experience and response in a case where the two character's skills and abilities are "close" and "similar" as a counter to the cases I was being presented with where the two characters were so ridiculously far apart in common skills and abilities as to be (equally) absurd, and where it was claimed that cheating wouldn't matter. It was obviously intended to be hypothetical, so responding with "but there's no chance of having two identical rogues in a party" is kinda not really a relevant response. The same argument works for any two characters being played that have common skills and abilities that are somewhat "close" in relative game power (and I followed up with several examples of this). And that's something that does typically happen at most gaming tables, certainly far more often than the counter case where apparently no two characters ever have anything in common that they try to ever do, so one cheating doesn't affect any of the others.

2. IME, a player who will cheat while playing their level 2 character in a game with level 20s, will also cheat when they are the one playing the level 20 character in a game with level 2s. So that excuse is just that: an excuse.

Players cheat, not characters. And they always cheat to be "better" at something than the stuff on their character sheet, the rules of the game, and the die rolls would normally result in. Rationalizing it away doesn't change that basic motivation. Trying to argue edge cases and exceptions doesn't either. The very fact that you have to contrive situations in which your rationalizations apply is the first clue that what you're trying to excuse isn't really excusable.

And yes. I do acknowledge that there can be games where the die rolls don't matter much, and where handwaving out outcomes is accepted. But those are also part of the "rules" the players all agree upon when they play the game. I've said this, yet keep getting example cases back that don't include these sorts of situations. Certainly, a case where the necromancer tosses a spell at a character forcing a "save or die" is not a case where your default table rules are "handwave die rolls to get outcomes we like". If so, then why have that in the scenario in the first place? There are a dozen ways to roleplay (or just define) the actions and spells/abilities of that necromancer that allow the PCs to overcome him without putting the player in the situation of rolling a die like that in the first place. That's how you do that in a game if you don't want those kinds of conflict/outcome situations to occur. just. don't. put. them. in. your. game.. You don't put the player in the "save or die" situation, and then introduce an exception case if the player doesn't like it. That's just... insane. And will very much result in chaotic behavior by the players at your table over time.

As a GM, create rules for your table and stick to them. It's just not that hard. Failure to do this is what usually causes problems at a table, even if you think you are doing it to create table harmony. You're not. You're just teaching your players bad habits, and in the long run, making them unhappy.

[NichG]

I just have two points to make on this:

1. The whole "two identical rogues" example was just that: An example intended to highlight a hypothetical case, so we could examine likely player experience and response in a case where the two character's skills and abilities are "close" and "similar" as a counter to the cases I was being presented with where the two characters were so ridiculously far apart in common skills and abilities as to be (equally) absurd, and where it was claimed that cheating wouldn't matter. It was obviously intended to be hypothetical, so responding with "but there's no chance of having two identical rogues in a party" is kinda not really a relevant response. The same argument works for any two characters being played that have common skills and abilities that are somewhat "close" in relative game power (and I followed up with several examples of this). And that's something that does typically happen at most gaming tables, certainly far more often than the counter case where apparently no two characters ever have anything in common that they try to ever do, so one cheating doesn't affect any of the others.

2. IME, a player who will cheat while playing their level 2 character in a game with level 20s, will also cheat when they are the one playing the level 20 character in a game with level 2s. So that excuse is just that: an excuse.

Players cheat, not characters. And they always cheat to be "better" at something than the stuff on their character sheet, the rules of the game, and the die rolls would normally result in. Rationalizing it away doesn't change that basic motivation. Trying to argue edge cases and exceptions doesn't either. The very fact that you have to contrive situations in which your rationalizations apply is the first clue that what you're trying to excuse isn't really excusable.

And yes. I do acknowledge that there can be games where the die rolls don't matter much, and where handwaving out outcomes is accepted. But those are also part of the "rules" the players all agree upon when they play the game. I've said this, yet keep getting example cases back that don't include these sorts of situations. Certainly, a case where the necromancer tosses a spell at a character forcing a "save or die" is not a case where your default table rules are "handwave die rolls to get outcomes we like". If so, then why have that in the scenario in the first place? There are a dozen ways to roleplay (or just define) the actions and spells/abilities of that necromancer that allow the PCs to overcome him without putting the player in the situation of rolling a die like that in the first place. That's how you do that in a game if you don't want those kinds of conflict/outcome situations to occur. just. don't. put. them. in. your. game.. You don't put the player in the "save or die" situation, and then introduce an exception case if the player doesn't like it. That's just... insane. And will very much result in chaotic behavior by the players at your table over time.

As a GM, create rules for your table and stick to them. It's just not that hard. Failure to do this is what usually causes problems at a table, even if you think you are doing it to create table harmony. You're not. You're just teaching your players bad habits, and in the long run, making them unhappy.

I was mostly staying out of this since I don't think Quertus' direction of argumentation is one that I would support here, but since this is my given example, and I explained this earlier.

Whether its good for something to be in the game or not can depend on the players. Furthermore, it can depend on the day of the week, what someone got in the mail, an encounter someone had at work, and other stuff that we're not privy to. Cheating can be about advantage, sure. But more fundamentally, I would say that it is about control. It is someone saying 'actually I am going to just decide this'. The thing that someone could make go their way is that they 'win' against someone else. Or it could be that they seize control of the situation. Or their seize control over what is happening to their character.

Players having control is not intrinsically good or bad. Players taking control when it wasn't given to them is not intrinsically good or bad. Players making up their mind whether they need control on the spot is not intrinsically good or bad. Having high pressure or high stakes but then allowing people to tap out is not intrinsically good or bad. It is not necessarily better than just not having those high pressure things at all, nor is it necessarily worse. It depends on the table.

No one is obligated to like playing at a table that permits cheating, but no one is obligated to hate it either or to stigmatize it or label it as immoral. The world will not end if people are allowed to cheat at a table. The group will not automatically disintegrate or become unhappy or automatically turn into sociopaths or turn secretly miserable or whatever. Some groups might! Some groups will do that even without cheating! But other groups can have a dynamic where it just doesn't matter so much - where its blase not because people are forcing themselves to tolerate something they dislike, but because its really just 'um, okay, you do you'. That at least I think Quertus is correct about, though the specific mechanical examples are IMO just a bad way to argue an essential point that inevitably gets lost in a sort of race towards more and more extreme positions.

[kyoryu]

"Cheating" (in the narrow sense of "not accurately reporting what the dice rolled") is not inherently a moral issue. However, telling your friends you're going to stick by a certain standard behavior and then not doing so kind of is.

That said, your points are pretty valid in terms of bad days, etc. Personally, that's why I tend to prefer games that put a lot more judgement in the GM's hands, and gives players some level of ability to influence things, even after the roll.

Like, in Fate, there's no die roll that inherently, mechanically says "you die". And even if the situation is such that a player doesn't want to accept the consequences of what happens, they can use Fate Points to buy out of that (but then they won't be able to for other things, thus "limited".)

In this way, a lot of the circumstances that you might handle with "cheating" (if the table is okay with it, it's fine) are baked into the process of the system, and don't require "overriding" the system.

[NichG]

"Cheating" (in the narrow sense of "not accurately reporting what the dice rolled") is not inherently a moral issue. However, telling your friends you're going to stick by a certain standard behavior and then not doing so kind of is.

That said, your points are pretty valid in terms of bad days, etc. Personally, that's why I tend to prefer games that put a lot more judgement in the GM's hands, and gives players some level of ability to influence things, even after the roll.

Like, in Fate, there's no die roll that inherently, mechanically says "you die". And even if the situation is such that a player doesn't want to accept the consequences of what happens, they can use Fate Points to buy out of that (but then they won't be able to for other things, thus "limited".)

In this way, a lot of the circumstances that you might handle with "cheating" (if the table is okay with it, it's fine) are baked into the process of the system, and don't require "overriding" the system.

I mean, there are lots of moving parts at a table, many combinations of which can be used to resolve issues or form compromises. You can use the choice of system to do things, but then that restricts your choice of system. You can use table culture to do things, but that can restrict the tenor of game.

If I am fine with cheating for a particular campaign, it's probably also going to have a no-PvP expectation. If I want PvP or competitive play in general, the compromise will be to be strict about cheating there. But if I am not doing that, I can run almost any system and lean on the table culture to make it work rather than either restricting myself to systems that have that sort of thing baked in.

I guess my point is that all of those choices are available to work with and to tune to specific player sets. Even if I don't go everywhere, knowing that there are different ways to be that discard really common assumptions is useful. Even outside the specific cheating topic. Not treating interactions at the table as needing to be in the form of contractual legalese is a very powerful idea. Knowing you can ask the group to uphold a value rather than make a rule is a very powerful idea.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Knowing you can ask the group to uphold a value rather than make a rule is a very powerful idea.

Asking a group to uphold a value is making a rule. It's the most important form of rule IMO.

[NichG]

Asking a group to uphold a value is making a rule. It's the most important form of rule IMO.

It's different from the usual sense of rule in that it can't be objectively determined whether it was violated, and furthermore it may not be something which can in a binary sense either be followed or not followed correctly. 'Value the fun of the group as a whole' for example.

I think its a useful distinction since there often is a perception that the only kinds of things that can be meaningful are 'you must do X' or 'you must not do X' sorts of things, leading to e.g. 'I did everything my players asked, are they justified in still disliking my game?' kinds of misunderstandings.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's different from the usual sense of rule in that it can't be objectively determined whether it was violated, and furthermore it may not be something which can in a binary sense either be followed or not followed correctly. 'Value the fun of the group as a whole' for example.

I think its a useful distinction since there often is a perception that the only kinds of things that can be meaningful are 'you must do X' or 'you must not do X' sorts of things, leading to e.g. 'I did everything my players asked, are they justified in still disliking my game?' kinds of misunderstandings.

All the important "rules" are like this. Rules that can be objectively implemented are, in my opinion, best left up to machines to do where possible, and rarely actually intrinsically matter. They only matter because there's the table value of "play by the (mechanical) rules". In the absence of that table value, cheating isn't possible/meaningful. It's only violations of these table values that actually cause friction. So it's even more important to get them in the open and be very clear about them, even if you can't mechanically/binary enforce.

If you (especially as a DM) "break the rules" in service of the table value of "help everyone have fun" and everyone has fun...you didn't break any rules. In fact, following the (mechanical/system) rules in a way that reduces table fun is a breach of the rules, at least the rules that actually matter." Written words have no feelings. People do.

[kyoryu]

I mean, there are lots of moving parts at a table, many combinations of which can be used to resolve issues or form compromises. You can use the choice of system to do things, but then that restricts your choice of system. You can use table culture to do things, but that can restrict the tenor of game.

For sure! Though, to be fair, I tend to prefer systems that give that room anyway, for a vast number of other reasons. So it's not really a restriction in that case.

(Specifically, explicitly creating those judgement situations in the rules also means that you don't need to override the rules for other reasons, so you can let the dice fall where they may and follow the rules that exist the vast majority of the time. That does create a situation where you have to have a decent level of trust in the table, but frankly if I don't have that I'd rather not play.)

All the important "rules" are like this. Rules that can be objectively implemented are, in my opinion, best left up to machines to do where possible, and rarely actually intrinsically matter. They only matter because there's the table value of "play by the (mechanical) rules". In the absence of that table value, cheating isn't possible/meaningful. It's only violations of these table values that actually cause friction. So it's even more important to get them in the open and be very clear about them, even if you can't mechanically/binary enforce.

If you (especially as a DM) "break the rules" in service of the table value of "help everyone have fun" and everyone has fun...you didn't break any rules. In fact, following the (mechanical/system) rules in a way that reduces table fun is a breach of the rules, at least the rules that actually matter." Written words have no feelings. People do.

I think you two are in violent agreement, though it probably is worthwhile to note those two sets of "rules" and their properties. Treating the "value-rules" as "hard-rules" generally ends up in bad places.

[Talakeal]

An update from the OP:

So I played again the other night, and had another instance where the players encountered a monster and one of them simply pulled out the MM and read the entry. I don't like this behavior as it is both disruptive to the flow of the game and makes IC lore skills irrelevant, but I wasn't sure how to say anything without making a scene so I kept my mouth shut.

Is there any way I can have a conversation explaining to my players that it is not acceptable to be reading monster entries at the table without coming across as an ass?


The cheating player continues to pull off literal 1 in a million rolls each session, succeed at 90% of all dice rolls, and critically succeed at close to half of all dice rolls. I actually wore my glasses to the gaming session (I don't normally wear them except when driving or watching movies because I only need them for long distance reading and they mess up my close up vision) and actually saw here lie about the result of a dice roll several times. Any advice on how to address this?

[Jorren]

An update from the OP:

So I played again the other night, and had another instance where the players encountered a monster and one of them simply pulled out the MM and read the entry. I don't like this behavior as it is both disruptive to the flow of the game and makes IC lore skills irrelevant, but I wasn't sure how to say anything without making a scene so I kept my mouth shut.

Is there any way I can have a conversation explaining to my players that it is not acceptable to be reading monster entries at the table without coming across as an ass?


The cheating player continues to pull off literal 1 in a million rolls each session, succeed at 90% of all dice rolls, and critically succeed at close to half of all dice rolls. I actually wore my glasses to the gaming session (I don't normally wear them except when driving or watching movies because I only need them for long distance reading and they mess up my close up vision) and actually saw here lie about the result of a dice roll several times. Any advice on how to address this?

I would phrase it exactly like this at the start of the next game session:


Can we have a conversation about the notion that it is not acceptable to be reading monster entries at the table without me coming across as an ass?

[Anymage]

An update from the OP:

So I played again the other night, and had another instance where the players encountered a monster and one of them simply pulled out the MM and read the entry. I don't like this behavior as it is both disruptive to the flow of the game and makes IC lore skills irrelevant, but I wasn't sure how to say anything without making a scene so I kept my mouth shut.

Is there any way I can have a conversation explaining to my players that it is not acceptable to be reading monster entries at the table without coming across as an ass?

How many players are doing this? If it's just one guy you can ask everyone to put all non-PHB books away somewhere out of reach, under the same logic as asking everyone to put their phones away so they can focus on the game at hand. IF the behavior is spreading you might be facing an uphill battle.

It can be useful to refluff, since it's hard to look up the specific monster if you don't know what the underlying stat block is. That depends on how much this is a specific case of looking up monster stats vs. generally breaking table flow to metagame.

The cheating player continues to pull off literal 1 in a million rolls each session, succeed at 90% of all dice rolls, and critically succeed at close to half of all dice rolls. I actually wore my glasses to the gaming session (I don't normally wear them except when driving or watching movies because I only need them for long distance reading and they mess up my close up vision) and actually saw here lie about the result of a dice roll several times. Any advice on how to address this?

In theory you could ask everyone to roll in plain view in the center of the table, but I have a feeling this player is sitting somewhere out of the way for a reason. And either babysitting her yourself or asking someone else to take up the job means that someone else has to expend a lot of mental effort trying to keep her straight.

Next time you're playing you can call her out when you spot her lying about a dice roll. But there are no good solutions I can think of. Putting her on the spot and turning it into "let's all roll where everyone can see from now on, to make sure there's no more chance of misunderstanding" takes a lot of finesse to pull off and she'll very likely try to keep testing that norm when she thinks she can get away with it. Booting her would have the obvious social fallout. Taking the "ehh, screw it" philosophy and turning a blind eye means that the behavior will continue and most likely spread.

[Reversefigure4]

An update from the OP... Any advice on how to address this?

With your particular group, there's no solution (that doesn't involve new players).
- Asking them not to look through the MM while you're playing will result in the players complaining.
- Changing the monster's stats (it's not a Troll, it's a Squalmish, which uses similar stats but is immune to fire and can fly at 20") will result in the players complaining about your metagaming.
- Making up custom monsters that can't be looked up will result in complaining.
- Asking them to put the book in the middle of the table so that everyone can metagame with equal levels of power will result in the players complaining.
- Asking the player to stop cheating will result in a lot of denial and whining, followed by continued cheating.
- Putting in a table rule that everyone has to roll in a visible dice tray will result in complaining.
- Asking them to all cheat equally and just telling them they can declare whatever result they want will result in complaining.
- Asking the player to cheat more subtly by rolling in their own unseen dice tray so you don't have to see how much they're cheating will probably result in complaining.
- Asking them why they're cheating will result in "I'm not, but if I am, it's your fault GM."

At this point, I'd probably use Quertus' advice. Make it clear to the entire table that it's perfectly OK to cheat, read the Monster Manual, read the module in advance, metagame to their heart's content. Dropkick any form of narrative or mechanical balance out the window, and completely alter the nature of the game to 'players do whatever they want' and see if they turn into Quertus-level roleplayers? Even then, I'd expect a bunch of complaints about how it's now 'too easy' and your terrible faults some more.

[Keltest]

At this point, I think the solution is to drop the group. These people are taking advantage of you, full stop. You arent having fun, and you seem to be under the impression that they will not change their behavior to fix that.

If you're feeling generous, tell them point blank that the problematic behavior needs to end immediately and unconditionally, or you walk. But I dont think theres any resolution to this problem that doesnt involve you walking or threatening to do so.

[Psyren]

An update from the OP:

So I played again the other night, and had another instance where the players encountered a monster and one of them simply pulled out the MM and read the entry. I don't like this behavior as it is both disruptive to the flow of the game and makes IC lore skills irrelevant, but I wasn't sure how to say anything without making a scene so I kept my mouth shut.

Is there any way I can have a conversation explaining to my players that it is not acceptable to be reading monster entries at the table without coming across as an ass?


The cheating player continues to pull off literal 1 in a million rolls each session, succeed at 90% of all dice rolls, and critically succeed at close to half of all dice rolls. I actually wore my glasses to the gaming session (I don't normally wear them except when driving or watching movies because I only need them for long distance reading and they mess up my close up vision) and actually saw here lie about the result of a dice roll several times. Any advice on how to address this?

I think you can fix the first issue (see Jorren's post) but not the second unless you straight-up threaten to walk as Keltest mentioned. And be ready to follow through.

(As always, no gaming > bad gaming.)

[Vahnavoi]

An update from the OP:

So I played again the other night, and had another instance where the players encountered a monster and one of them simply pulled out the MM and read the entry. I don't like this behavior as it is both disruptive to the flow of the game and makes IC lore skills irrelevant, but I wasn't sure how to say anything without making a scene so I kept my mouth shut.

Is there any way I can have a conversation explaining to my players that it is not acceptable to be reading monster entries at the table without coming across as an ass?

The cheating player continues to pull off literal 1 in a million rolls each session, succeed at 90% of all dice rolls, and critically succeed at close to half of all dice rolls. I actually wore my glasses to the gaming session (I don't normally wear them except when driving or watching movies because I only need them for long distance reading and they mess up my close up vision) and actually saw here lie about the result of a dice roll several times. Any advice on how to address this?

Yes. The conversation goes like this: "X is against the rules. As a game referee, I'm giving you a warning. Do it again and you'll be out of the game for rest of the session."

If players protest: "When you chose to play this particular game with me as the game master, you agreed to play according to its rules, with me as their enforcer. If you don't accept me enforcing base rules of the game, there is no point in me running this game."

If players continue to protest, you pick up your ball and go home.

This is a lesson you ought to have learned on third grade in elementary school. That you instead opted to keep your mouth shut to avoid making a scene suggests that your players have emotionally worn you down to the point where you'd rather let them have their way than hold them accountable for their behaviour. The situation will never actually get better if you keep acting the way you did.

The entire sequence is pretty much a case study of what happens when a game master fails to explain that they're also the game's referee and cannot convince players to give them their final say.

[Quertus]

With your particular group, there's no solution (that doesn't involve new players).
- Asking them not to look through the MM while you're playing will result in the players complaining.
- Changing the monster's stats (it's not a Troll, it's a Squalmish, which uses similar stats but is immune to fire and can fly at 20") will result in the players complaining about your metagaming.
- Making up custom monsters that can't be looked up will result in complaining.
- Asking them to put the book in the middle of the table so that everyone can metagame with equal levels of power will result in the players complaining.
- Asking the player to stop cheating will result in a lot of denial and whining, followed by continued cheating.
- Putting in a table rule that everyone has to roll in a visible dice tray will result in complaining.
- Asking them to all cheat equally and just telling them they can declare whatever result they want will result in complaining.
- Asking the player to cheat more subtly by rolling in their own unseen dice tray so you don't have to see how much they're cheating will probably result in complaining.
- Asking them why they're cheating will result in "I'm not, but if I am, it's your fault GM."

At this point, I'd probably use Quertus' advice. Make it clear to the entire table that it's perfectly OK to cheat, read the Monster Manual, read the module in advance, metagame to their heart's content. Dropkick any form of narrative or mechanical balance out the window, and completely alter the nature of the game to 'players do whatever they want' and see if they turn into Quertus-level roleplayers? Even then, I'd expect a bunch of complaints about how it's now 'too easy' and your terrible faults some more.

Good stuff! The first part because it’s true, the last bit because it’s funny.

For the record, the recipe that produced a “Quertus-level roleplayer” started with an emotionally-mature [1] alien [2] with great intellectual curiosity. Throw in a zealous (“one right way”) paternal unit with a military background. Slowly fill the growing intellect with increasingly complex board games, then introduce war games. Next, introduce RPGs, which will be taken as war games where you get to try to act like other people. Show how stupid it feels to jump around a character’s timeline, where two characters are meeting each other at level 18, and roleplay accordingly, yet know each other when they’re later played at level 5 for the next adventure. Lastly, introduce the players to salvation in the form of a group that obviously but gently prioritizes roleplaying, in the form of one of the biggest sources of spotlight time being then asking questions like, “the version of <character> who lives in my head would have done X. You had them do Y. Help me understand why they chose Y over X.”, and whose influence further teaches the impressionable youth to laugh at notions like “pacing” as unnecessary if not harmful to the game.

Taking the recipe of “anything goes”, and applying it to Talakeal’s table?

I mean, first off, kinda the point of my comments was that most anything can be done with the right mindset. The problem is, Talakeal’s table really lacks a cohesive table culture beyond blame throwing and explosive immaturity. About the only thing that’s good for is roleplaying children, or certain famous individuals who don’t make good role models.

I’d say more, but it’d be counterproductive. So, yeah, it’s as likely to work as anything at Talakeal’s table, I guess.

[1] Seriously, I don’t think my player knows how to roleplay children.
[2] From my point of view, the Jedi are evil you guys are the aliens. Same difference.

An update from the OP:

So I played again the other night,

Well, that’s your first problem right there.

No, not just the snarky version of that statement - this should have read, “so I talked to the player who pulled out the MM, then glared at me when I asked them to put it away”. You’ve missed your prime opportunity to deal with this like reasonable adults.

and had another instance where the players encountered a monster and one of them simply pulled out the MM and read the entry.

Good for them, pursuing the style of game they enjoy, despite (from their perspective) their GM not caring about their preferences or enjoyment enough to give them a game they’ll enjoy.

I don't like this behavior as it is both disruptive to the flow of the game

and makes IC lore skills irrelevant,

So, here’s the thing:

No, wait. First, a caveat, as I need to state my biases: I hate “IC lore skills”. There’s a lot of systems where they’re one of the dumbest things in the system.

That out of the way, let’s look at two opposed mindsets on this problem of “player skill or action invalidating or bypassing a skill”.

Combat as War

So, in CaW, “not having to roll” is the goal. The objective is to utilize the strategic layer to remove the necessity to drop to the tactical layer, to make success so assured that there’s no need to roll dice (outside rare opportunities to further characterize the character through the roleplaying that occurs during the specific micro-interactions during combat (or whatever other type of encounter the player skills should have otherwise bypassed)).

But part of the trick is, CaW thinking relies on accurate intel; leaping to false conclusions about the Avatar of Hate is a good reason for the GM to pull the party into initiative instead of simply narrating past the encounter, forcing the party to second-guess “what did we get wrong in our analysis?”.

Here, “ignorance” is a sin, a sign of failure - something your players aren’t mature enough to handle. So this behavior of looking at the book is seen as a good way to solve the problem of stupid actions taken in ignorance and the pursuant blame throwing.

Combat as Sport

Here, the important part is that the challenges be “sporting”, and utilizing the strategic layer to bypass the challenge of the encounter is tantamount to being a killjoy, if not outright cheating.

So learning about the monster by reading the book is obviously bad, right? Well… not exactly. But the thinking gets more complex here.

Obviously, “bypassing the skill by reading the book” is bad. However, “bypassing the GM by reading the book” is not. That is, it’s equivalent to making the skill roll, and the GM saying, “here, read this”. And, between the book having pictures, giving more detail than a GM who cares about “pacing” is likely to care to give, and the GM in question being untrusted, with a history of poor communication skills? Yeah, I can absolutely see anyone making their skill roll responding by cracking open the book, showing everyone, having a bonding moment with the team, and maybe asking the GM, “anything different about your Smurfs that we should know about?”.

So that covers why they’d favor the book over an explanation from the GM. But making the skill roll is still obviously the first step, right?

Not necessarily.

We’re still in Combat as Sport. Which means that encounters should be balanced for exactly one difficulty level. Engaging the strategic layer, and changing that difficulty level is cheating, remember? Well, the difficulty of fighting against a known vs an unknown quantity represents a change in the challenge of the encounter. And that’s cheating, remember? So, was it designed to be a known quantity, or an unknown quantity? Well, it’s in the book, and we might well know it OOC, so it’s clearly meant to be a known quantity. No point even rolling at this point.

So a CaS mindset can easily rationalize that it is critical that everyone understands exactly what they’re encountering, even before the Determinator, your players’ weak egos and inability to deal with looking foolish, or your players’ desire for an easier game than you deliver gets involved.

Or they may just like dealing with the known (perhaps from having horror stories about dealing with the unknown like the Avatar of Hate), and be wielding their agency as human beings to force the game towards a direction they’ll enjoy, given that they have no other real options to improve the game.

Since they can’t get you to hand them an ever-successful power fantasy, and you don’t seem interested in testing a game where the logical consequences of failure are setbacks rather than TPKs, this seems a logical growth of their behavior.

but I wasn't sure how to say anything without making a scene so I kept my mouth shut.

Well, at least this gives you the option to take the high road, explain… something more coherent than “game flow” and “ic skills”, I hope… and ask them to explain their reasons why they went for the book.

I wouldn’t be surprised to hear, “we’ve all decided you **** at description, so we’re fixing your game”, or “I like the pictures”, or “what book?” from Bizarro world at this point. From a normal player, I’d advise you to listen to their feedback, and figure out how to give them what they want before suggesting that as an alternative to their actions.

Heck, since your reasons are rather flimsy, just skip explaining yourself, and move straight to understanding their PoV.

Is there any way I can have a conversation explaining to my players that it is not acceptable to be reading monster entries at the table without coming across as an ass?

Probably not.

I mean, I’m a ****, and even I would approach this with asking questions and trying to solve their underlying issues.

Since that’s not a thing you do, your choices are pretty much “accept it, encouraging the players to ignore you further”, or “come off as a ****, increase their resentment of you, and make the game explode or implode in whole new ways as you struggle to remove what little agency they’ve claimed for themselves”.

The cheating player continues to pull off literal 1 in a million rolls each session, succeed at 90% of all dice rolls, and critically succeed at close to half of all dice rolls. I actually wore my glasses to the gaming session (I don't normally wear them except when driving or watching movies because I only need them for long distance reading and they mess up my close up vision) and actually saw here lie about the result of a dice roll several times. Any advice on how to address this?

Best case is for another player to address it, IME.

[Talakeal]

Snip.

I have to ask, are you doing that Devil's advocate sort of thing where you try and type a post coming from the perspective of one of my players? Because most of this reads as downright sociopathic, and kind of reminds of when I was a kid and one of my players used to cut up my mom's furniture with a pocket knife during the game and claim that he was justified in doing so because I invited him over and failed to keep him sufficiently entertained.

I will say though, the conflict between IC knowledge skills and OOC game knowledge is an interesting topic, because playing someone who is more or less knowledgeable than you are is an important part of the fantasy and really hard to do. This merits further discussion. Care to elaborate on your end of it?

Or they may just like dealing with the known (perhaps from having horror stories about dealing with the unknown like the Avatar of Hate).

If you recall, in that situation they weren't dealing with an unknown, I told them exactly what the mechanic was and they decided that I was playing word games in an attempt to trick them into doing the opposite of what they needed to. And, honestly, at the point where the DM is trying to trick you OOC I really don't think there is anything printed in the monster manual that is going to help.

Since they can’t get you to hand them an ever-successful power fantasy, and you don’t seem interested in testing a game where the logical consequences of failure are setbacks rather than TPKs, this seems a logical growth of their behavior.

Wait, wait, who said that? I don't think I have ever had an actual TPK outside of a one shot in three decades of gaming. I much prefer games with setbacks rather than TPKs, and frequently have to wrangle my players into it as they would much rather die than face capture, humiliation, or god forbid financial loss, especially when they are already feeling upset from losing and in a mood to cut off their nose to spite their face.

If you recall my last campaign, I actually had them roll on a mishap chart rather than dying, which they complained was to random, so I changed it to losing a set amount of treasure, which they complained was to punishing, so I changed it to no punishment for death, which they then started killing themselves the moment things went wrong for a "free teleport back to town" and then got mad when the NPCs who were with them died as a result because they said we had an unspoken "gentleman's agreement" that no punishment for death meant there were no storyline consequences for death.

[gbaji]

I would phrase it exactly like this at the start of the next game session:


Can we have a conversation about the notion that it is not acceptable to be reading monster entries at the table without me coming across as an ass?

Honestly. Even that is too passive IMO, especially based on what I've picked up about this table and their roughshod play style. Asking if we can have a conversation about something? Just verbally tell the player "You can't do that" right at the moment they do that. Not 5 minutes later. Not the next day, or next game session. Right then.

Treat them like a puppy you are training. You don't wait until the next day and then have a conversation about how chewing on the furniture is bad, or pooping in the house is bad. You address the issue right then. I think a heck of a lot of the problems with this table is that they are not being told firmly what is acceptable and what it not acceptable.

If someone reached for a source book at my table, literally the game would stop at that point. I would ask them what they are doing. If the answer is anything other than "moving this to the side so I don't spill my drink on it", the next thing out of my mouth is "there is no looking up anything other than player rules/spells while playing". I will tell them what they know about the creature/opponent they are facing based on whatever may be common knowledge in the game, assumed knowledge based on the past/history of the PCs in play, and whatever lore based skills that may be applicable and successfully made. Period.

The GM has to run the table. That doesn't mean you iron fist things, but there do have to be firm rules that are followed. When players think the GM is a pushover, they will push him over. That's what appears to be happening here. Thinking you are making the players happier by giving in to this behavior is actually not making them happy. It's just creating more conflict.